2

MOND, based on a modifications of Newton's law for small accelerations, describes the rotation curves of stars in most galaxies, especially the outer stars.

Has MOND been tested for the stars in our own galaxy, the Milky Way? Is there any publication on this topic?

It appears that Does MOND make good predictions? does not answer this question, because it is about other galaxies; it does not discuss the Milky Way at all. This question is about rotation curves of the stars in the Milky Way only - not about other stars.

The challenge is different, because one has to measure many different stars at many different positions in the sky, and then deduce the rotation curve.

KlausK
  • 727
  • 7
    MOND hasn’t been “confirmed” and relatively few physicists accept it (compared with dark matter). See Wikipedia for its problems. – Ghoster Nov 12 '22 at 07:56
  • 1
    Possible duplicates: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5762/2451 and links therein. – Qmechanic Nov 12 '22 at 08:08
  • 1
    @Qmechanic: no, it is not a duplicate - I edited the question and the text to make this clear. – KlausK Nov 12 '22 at 11:48
  • @Ghoster MOND has its problems, especially around the issue of cosmological dark matter. Given that not even dark matter has been detected, MOND is a hypothesis among several, none of which has been definitely confirmed. – KlausK Nov 12 '22 at 11:50
  • @KlausK the edit does not clarify. Please edit to explain clearly why the duplicate does not answer the question. What exactly is missing? – Dale Nov 12 '22 at 12:00
  • Thanks, that does clarify now. I have voted to reopen – Dale Nov 12 '22 at 13:30
  • @Ghoster I think there's a reasonable question here. Whether or not gravity is modified in the way MOND suggests, at a purely phenomenological level, MOND can fit many galaxy rotation curves with one parameter. Presumably dark matter should be able to reproduce this behavior, but as far as I know, no one has shown this. I think it's reasonable to ask if anyone has measured the rotation curve of the Milky Way and compared it to the MOND prediction. – Andrew Nov 12 '22 at 14:05
  • @Ghoster The respected blog https://tritonstation.com/2022/11/11/tooth-fairies-auxiliary-hypotheses/ has many points about the experimental data about MOND and about LambdaCDM. – KlausK Nov 12 '22 at 16:09
  • @Andrew I agree that asking whether MOND explains the rotation curve of the Milky Way is a fine question. I objected to the loaded phrase “confirmed also” which to me suggests that MOND is widely accepted. – Ghoster Nov 12 '22 at 18:00
  • 1
    Googling "milky way" mond turns up a few papers. – Mitchell Porter Nov 12 '22 at 20:40
  • Is there any theories in science that are 'confirmed'? – user121330 Nov 16 '22 at 21:00

2 Answers2

2

MOND has many successes on the galactic scale (see Mcgaugh 2012 for a review) , but still falls short of explaining the observed mass density of the Bullet Cluster (see this for a review). Since MOND is not a relativistic theory, it cannot be the full story. Once you try to develop a relativistic theory that gives you MOND predictions at the appropriate limits, it falls short of explaining many phenomena we see on cosmological scales such as the CMB anisotropies and the Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations. Thus, one finds relativistic MONDian theories invoking the notion of "dark fields" and "dark matter" and so we are back to square 1.

realanswers
  • 450
  • 3
  • 17
-1

This paper by McGaugh was pointed out to me:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.11158

In summary, MOND is better for the Milky Way than LambdaCDM.

KlausK
  • 727